Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous" (was: If you were inventing C)

In article <959cl097b32oeu9s680oib9p7tpqnitvd0@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2004 20:22:04 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 

[snip]
 
>
>It's the same on other architectures such as Intel, Power, SPARC, etc.

It is still unclear, Mr Wagner... are you saying that since all machines
are 64-bit architectures then the differences between all
machine-instructions are null... or that the example I chose to
demonstrate how machine-instruction efficiencies might need to be
considered is, as was clearly labelled at the start, 'trivial'?

DD

On 26 Sep 2004 08:22:18 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <959cl097b32oeu9s680oib9p7tpqnitvd0@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner  <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote: 
>
>[snip]
> 
>
>It is still unclear, Mr Wagner... are you saying that since all machines
>are 64-bit architectures then the differences between all
>machine-instructions are null...

I didn't say that, although it happens to be true. Generally, all
instructions run in one clock, unless they operate on multiple words.

> or that the example I chose to
>demonstrate how machine-instruction efficiencies might need to be
>considered is, as was clearly labelled at the start, 'trivial'?

That's it. The example you chose doesn't support your point .. not
even trivially.

In article <07mdl0he2olqprif8btd40o0ubv7efavqg@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner  <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote:
>On 26 Sep 2004 08:22:18 -0400, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>
>I didn't say that, although it happens to be true. Generally, all
>instructions run in one clock, unless they operate on multiple words.

Not being familiar with 'all instructions' on all possible platforms I can
neither agree nor disagree with this assertion.

> 
>
>That's it. The example you chose doesn't support your point .. not
>even trivially.

If the flaw is in the admittedly trivial example, Mr Wagner, and not the
principle upon which the example is based, then perhaps a person of
knowledge, sound principles and generosity of spirit might examine the
depths and ignore the trivial... the question remains, it seems, open.

DD